Some websites have
slider tools on them where the user can adjust one or more variables and the
clever computer will calculate the value of another variable as a result.
Things like loans, for instance: you adjust one slider to show the amount required,
another to adjust the period over which you wish to repay and the computer
tells you the monthly payments. Sir Starmer seems to be using a similar tool
for what he rather dishonestly calls welfare ‘reform’.
In his case, the
variable he adjusts is the number of people pushed into poverty as a result of
any given proposal, and the output tells him the size of any saving to the Treasury
and the size of the majority in favour in the House of Commons. He started out
with a $5 billion saving, and the first answer it gave him was 250,000 more
people pushed into poverty. Sadly – for him, if not for those affected – the second
part of the result saw the majority slipping deeply into negative territory. He
duly adjusted the slider so that ‘only’ 150,000 more people would be pushed
into poverty. The savings came down by about £3 billion, but yesterday morning
it became clear that the majority would still be negative. Having run out of
time to play with further values in order to assess the outcome, he kicked the
ball into the long grass and decided to conduct an in-depth study into possible
reforms and their impact. Cue huge sigh of relief from those being dragooned
into voting for the bill, and a significant majority in favour of a bill which
now has a net saving of around zero – or maybe even a slight net cost.
The issue hasn’t
gone away, though. And nor has the basic approach. Whatever fine words are
spoken, they’re still asking the same question, which is, in essence, ‘what is
the maximum number of people which we can push into poverty and still ensure
that enough Labour MPs will vote for it to get it through the House of Commons?’
The review is little more than a cover for spending more time playing with that
slider. It’s just going to take a little longer to discover the tipping point
of the conscience of individual Labour MPs.
Posts
